What about the DNA evidence?

[Subduction Zone]

[youtube]qccj-yTlJ4Q[/youtube]

Only foolish creationists use the strawman argument that evolutionists claim DNA came together by chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the question should be why the massive amount of effort to make evolution look like it made something partly by chance and a whole lot of other things falling into place. When the design is so complex that it would appear to be a miracle in itself for that to happen. But as they say given enough time all things are possible.

Though random mutation is part of the theory of evolution changes are not driven by chance.

And designs only seem miraculous to the ignorant. ID is simply an attempt at keeping people ignorant. Practically all of Behe's claims of "irreducible complexity" have been debunked. We know almost the complete path of evolution of the bacterial flagellum and he used to claim it was impossible for it to have evolved at all. IDist choose problems on the cutting edge of biology forgetting that problems on the cutting edge are there because people are trying to solve those problems.

The supposedly impossible odds disappear when studied in depth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only foolish creationists use the strawman argument that evolutionists claim DNA came together by chance.

Well if anyone would, it would certainly be evolutionists.

 

[stevevw]

Though random mutation is part of the theory of evolution changes are not driven by chance.

And designs only seem miraculous to the ignorant. ID is simply an attempt at keeping people ignorant. Practically all of Behe's claims of "irreducible complexity" have been debunked. We know almost the complete path of evolution of the bacterial flagellum and he used to claim it was impossible for it to have evolved at all. IDist choose problems on the cutting edge of biology forgetting that problems on the cutting edge are there because people are trying to solve those problems.

The supposedly impossible odds disappear when studied in depth.

"Just because we are understanding how it all works doesn't mean it happened. I understand it is all not just by chance but even the parts of the process have a complex pattern to follow which doesn't normally allow mistakes and those mutations are not common. The process is so good at correcting itself that defects are something that is not meant to be there let alone move onto more complex and better adapted life. To me if it was to happen at all to get all the changes that can make a bacteria eventually become a living organism and then to the complexity we have today seems impossible or would take eons of time so that all the right things fell into place."


http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/
The DNA molecule is made of of some 3 billion genetic letters. The DNA actually stores information about the detailed instructions for assembling proteins in the form of a four-character digital code. It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! A teaspoon of DNA could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written"

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.
http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-code-thats-toppling-evolution/

 

[[serious]]

The information argument is nonsense. Any relevant definition of "information" can increase. Consider the following hypothetical:

There are several copies of a hemoglobin gene.
There is a duplication event resulting in one extra copy
The new copy undergoes a mutation that changes it's function ( say, binding to something else or binding stronger)
The new gene is deleted

Now, if any of those steps removed info, than another step has to add it. If anodization didn't change at all over the course of these events, your definition of information is irrelevant to evolution

 

[gungasnake]

Though random mutation is part of the theory of evolution changes are not driven by chance.

Yeah they are. At least in the mind of the evolutionist. The basic claim is that combinations of mutations produce new kinds of creatures, and then natural selection determines which of the new kinds survive.

 

[Loudmouth]

BUt if you looked at not just cars but all mechanical things would that show much variation within the design. So then you would not just have cars but also boat engines that go on water, train engines, plane engines that fly, computers, clocks, TVs, cranes, conveyor belts, ipads, robotics and anything that moves or works mechanically is all man made. They all perform different functions and all look different but have common mechanisms some in related areas such as electronics but all are more or less mechanical and man made. There is a relationship between them all and there are basic blue prints up to more complicated designs but all are traced back to a simple device that started it all. All will have aspects of the others from simple to complex depending on their purpose.

You completely missed what I wrote. I fully agree that mechanical things will show variation and share common features. What we DON'T see is a nested hierarchy. Let me repeat. What we DON'T see is a nested hierarchy. Planes, trains, and automobiles do not fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Life does. It is the PATTERN of shared and derived charactistic in life that evidences evolution. We could find a species that shares features with seagulls and bats, and that species would FALSIFY evolution.

Do you understand what I am saying? It is not the mere fact of sharing features that evidences evolution.

Because that is probably not possible in the genetic code.

Probably? That's the best you can do?

The truth of the matter is that you made this up out of whole cloth. You have no evidence to support it, and you probably don't even care if it is true or not. All you want to do is throw up a smoke screen to make it look like you have answers when you have none.

If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong. Show me why it is impossible for a species to have feathers and three middle ear bones. Show me the genetic interactions that make this impossible.

In addition, you might want to look into organisms that have been designed by humans. For example, the Glofish:

GloFish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fish carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene responsible for its fluorescence. It is a clear violation of the nested hierarchy, and humans accomplished it with no problems. Are you saying that the designer of life was less capable than humans? How can violating a nested hierarchy be impossible when humans do it with such ease?

If man has built all the machinery in the world including the computer "and its not the vessel but the written codes and stored information that make it work" if we see man make this happen with a complicated computer codes then how can you say something many times more complex wasn't from some intelligent design but had to have a lot of things fall into place to happen.

Do computer programs fall into a nested hierarchy? Nope, they don't. DNA does. That is how we know that it is the product of evolution. It would actually take extra effort to make computer code look evolved, and the same applies to DNA.

Let's look at other examples, shall we. Men build complicated machines to make big sparks, so surely the massive lightning bolts are produced by Zeus, right? I'm sorry, but "wow, that's complicated so God must have done it" is not a valid argument. It is a non-argument.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work.

That is another claim that you have made up out of whole cloth. This is why it is impossible to have a scientific discussion with creationists. They make stuff up, and pretend it is evidence.

No the question should be why the massive amount of effort to make evolution look like it made something partly by chance and a whole lot of other things falling into place. When the design is so complex that it would appear to be a miracle in itself for that to happen. But as they say given enough time all things are possible.

Why would design require life to fall into a nested hierarchy given that humans can easily design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy? Is God less capable than humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah they are. At least in the mind of the evolutionist. The basic claim is that combinations of mutations produce new kinds of creatures, and then natural selection determines which of the new kinds survive.

Selection is the opposite of random.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because we are understanding how it all works doesn't mean it happened.

The whole ID argument is that it is impossible for IC systems to evolve, therefore it had to be designed. If we show that IC systems can evolve then it refutes the entire ID argument.

I understand it is all not just by chance but even the parts of the process have a complex pattern to follow which doesn't normally allow mistakes and those mutations are not common.

Any evidence to back these claims? Or is this another claim made up out of whole cloth?

The process is so good at correcting itself that defects are something that is not meant to be there let alone move onto more complex and better adapted life.

Are you saying that no offspring ever has mutations? None?

To me if it was to happen at all to get all the changes that can make a bacteria eventually become a living organism and then to the complexity we have today seems impossible or would take eons of time so that all the right things fell into place.

Arguments from personal incredulity are a logical fallacy for a reason.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

The DNA molecule is made of of some 3 billion genetic letters. The DNA actually stores information about the detailed instructions for assembling proteins in the form of a four-character digital code. It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! A teaspoon of DNA could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written"

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

Are you aware that no two humans have the same genome, barring identical twins? There are 5 to 7 billion different combinations of DNA bases that all produce humans. Every person is born with around 50 mutations. Every one of us. We all have different genomes. Every possible non-lethal base substitution in the human genome is walking the Earth right now.

Again, you are just making stuff up as you go and pretending that it science. Doesn't work that way.

 

[[serious]]

Yeah they are. At least in the mind of the evolutionist. The basic claim is that combinations of mutations produce new kinds of creatures, and then natural selection determines which of the new kinds survive.

Mutations are random. Selection is not. Two isolated populations will not share the same random mutations and will eventually become reproductively incompatible. We have seen this happen in the lab and in nature. We even have pseudo snapshots of it in the form of ring species.

 

[stevevw]

You completely missed what I wrote. I fully agree that mechanical things will show variation and share common features. What we DON'T see is a nested hierarchy. Let me repeat. What we DON'T see is a nested hierarchy. Planes, trains, and automobiles do not fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Life does. It is the PATTERN of shared and derived charactistic in life that evidences evolution. We could find a species that shares features with seagulls and bats, and that species would FALSIFY evolution.

Do you understand what I am saying? It is not the mere fact of sharing features that evidences evolution.



Probably? That's the best you can do?

The truth of the matter is that you made this up out of whole cloth. You have no evidence to support it, and you probably don't even care if it is true or not. All you want to do is throw up a smoke screen to make it look like you have answers when you have none.

If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong. Show me why it is impossible for a species to have feathers and three middle ear bones. Show me the genetic interactions that make this impossible.

In addition, you might want to look into organisms that have been designed by humans. For example, the Glofish:

GloFish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fish carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene responsible for its fluorescence. It is a clear violation of the nested hierarchy, and humans accomplished it with no problems. Are you saying that the designer of life was less capable than humans? How can violating a nested hierarchy be impossible when humans do it with such ease?



Do computer programs fall into a nested hierarchy? Nope, they don't. DNA does. That is how we know that it is the product of evolution. It would actually take extra effort to make computer code look evolved, and the same applies to DNA.

Let's look at other examples, shall we. Men build complicated machines to make big sparks, so surely the massive lightning bolts are produced by Zeus, right? I'm sorry, but "wow, that's complicated so God must have done it" is not a valid argument. It is a non-argument.



That is another claim that you have made up out of whole cloth. This is why it is impossible to have a scientific discussion with creationists. They make stuff up, and pretend it is evidence.



Why would design require life to fall into a nested hierarchy given that humans can easily design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy? Is God less capable than humans?

So, how does a nested hierarchy present evidence for evolution? Well, the short answer is, It Doesn't. A close look at actual genetic evidence shows a substantial amount of data against the idea of nested hierarchies being evidence for evolutionary common descent when you compare protein coding genes and the proteins they produce across mammalian genomes. Why? Because individual organisms which are more closely related by common descent (or 'supposedly' more closely related) should be genetically more similar to each other than they would be to organisms to which they are more distantly related. More closely related means more genetically similar. This is certainly true in the case that you are more closely related to and therefore more genetically similar to your parents and sibling(s) than you are to a person living on a different continent or of different parental lineages. Say for example if you were an African-American born and raised by your parents who were sharecroppers somewhere in Mississippi. Then one day you wonder about your heritage and go for a DNA test and upon getting the results you found that you were genetically more similar to Caucasians you Might at least Wonder if maybe, just maybe you had been adopted.

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other. By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.

Now, how does this prediction measure up to the genetic data? Well, it doesn't measure up very well at all really. For an example within the primate hierarchy, while the Human TAAR1 gene actually is most similar to that in Chimp BUT it is Less similar to Gorilla than it is in Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset. This is one of many examples that contradicts the hypothesis that Gorillas are our evolutionary 'next of kin' after Chimpanzees.
http://newcreationist.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/nested-hierarchies-evidence-of-design.html

[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399

[/font]
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
Descriptiontrace amine associated receptor 1 [Source:HGNC Symbol;Acc:17734]LocationChromosome 6: 132,966,123-132,967,142 reverse strand.


[/font]

Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.


​

TheNewCreationist: Nested Hierarchies - Evidence of Design

 

[46AND2]

.

 

[[serious]]

So, how does a nested hierarchy present evidence for evolution? Well, the short answer is, It Doesn't. A close look at actual genetic evidence shows a substantial amount of data against the idea of nested hierarchies being evidence for evolutionary common descent when you compare protein coding genes and the proteins they produce across mammalian genomes. Why? Because individual organisms which are more closely related by common descent (or 'supposedly' more closely related) should be genetically more similar to each other than they would be to organisms to which they are more distantly related. More closely related means more genetically similar. This is certainly true in the case that you are more closely related to and therefore more genetically similar to your parents and sibling(s) than you are to a person living on a different continent or of different parental lineages. Say for example if you were an African-American born and raised by your parents who were sharecroppers somewhere in Mississippi. Then one day you wonder about your heritage and go for a DNA test and upon getting the results you found that you were genetically more similar to Caucasians you Might at least Wonder if maybe, just maybe you had been adopted.

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other. By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.

Now, how does this prediction measure up to the genetic data? Well, it doesn't measure up very well at all really. For an example within the primate hierarchy, while the Human TAAR1 gene actually is most similar to that in Chimp BUT it is Less similar to Gorilla than it is in Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset. This is one of many examples that contradicts the hypothesis that Gorillas are our evolutionary 'next of kin' after Chimpanzees.


[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399

[/FONT]
[FONT='Luxi Sans', Helvetica, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
Descriptiontrace amine associated receptor 1 [Source:HGNC Symbol;Acc:17734]LocationChromosome 6: 132,966,123-132,967,142 reverse strand.


[/FONT]

Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.


​

TheNewCreationist: Nested Hierarchies - Evidence of Design

Wait, you are admitting that all of the primates are appropriately nested together but that one section of one chromosome of one species is slightly more dissimilar than would be predicted in a more general sense? Here's a solution. Gorillas happen to have had more mutations in that specific spot than other primates due to possible selection pressure on those genes.

I'll counter with this:
Why do chickens have largely intact genes for tooth enamel if it isn't a holdover from their therapod ancestors?
Study of Chicken Teeth Sheds Light on Evolution : NPR

 

[Loudmouth]

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other.

That claim is false. Incomplete lineage sorting is a known and understood mechanism.

Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimp and Human Genomes: Population Genetics and Intelligent Design | Letters to Creationists

We would expect that the majority of the human genome should be more closely related to chimps, and it is with 70% of the human genome being more like the chimp genome than the gorilla genome. The predictions hold up, as does the nested hierarchy.

I can even show you how this works in the case of a human family. Siblings share a more recent common ancestor than cousins, so should we see that for every single part of the genome that siblings are more closely related than cousins are? No. Let's say that there are two alleles for a gene that we will call A and B. It is entirely possible that your siblings can have AA while you have BB, and that your cousins will also be BB. It is entirely possible that you will be more closely related to your cousins for parts of your genome than you are to your siblings.

More importantly, we can make predictions on how much incomplete lineage sorting should impact each genome, and those predictions are born out. We can predict that ILS should make us share more genes with gorillas than we do orangutans, and that is exactly what we observe. We can use the nested hierarchy to predict the percentage of ILS, and those predictions bear out.

This can't be explained by common design. There is absolutely no reason that common design should look exactly like evolution. None. And yet there is the evidence that exactly mimics what we would expect from evolution.

 

[46AND2]

What predictions are generated by the hypothesis that Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees, our purported next of kin, than to other species? Well, if Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor more recently than Humans and any other species then Human genes should be more similar to Chimpanzee genes than to any other species because, by evolution theory, we would have had to originate from the same exact gene pool. So, all the genes in the Human genome should be more similar to those of the Chimpanzee genome than to Gorilla, with maybe a couple of exceptions but even these possible exceptions should be very closely similar to each other.

So funny. In this paragraph, the author admits there can be a couple of exceptions. Then he uses an exception to supposedly refute the nested hierarchy claim.

By the Nested Hierarchy Humans should be genetically more similar to the great apes such as Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans than we are to other mammals such as Pigs, Horses or Dolphins. We should be more similar gene for gene to mammals than we are to birds and/or lizards.

And later in the paper, he admits that this is also what we see.

So where's the problem?

 

[stevevw]

So funny. In this paragraph, the author admits there can be a couple of exceptions. Then he uses an exception to supposedly refute the nested hierarchy claim.



And later in the paper, he admits that this is also what we see.

So where's the problem?

"The problem is that gorillas which are suppose to be our 2nd closest ancestor or are not. The Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset are closer to us than the gorilla. This puts a big dent in the family tree of man as the gorilla was seen as looking more like man and the others are less like man. It also shows how evolutionists get it wrong by trying to fit fossils into a hierarchy by claiming that the anatomy fits the picture. If they have got this wrong then how many others in the tree have they got wrong. In fact evidence is now coming out there are more violations to the human family tree. Nested hierarchy should show that our closest relatives are those which evolutionists have said in the taxonomic are linked by the fossils and anatomy they claim. They should also be closet to us in the genetics.

Now genetics are starting to pull that nested hierarchy apart and branches are falling off the tree they have made. Unexpected results are linking unusual species that they say should not go together. It is taking out important links they need to prove their theory and placing them in places they shouldn't be if the theory is true. But the most amazing find or should i say conclusion which the evidence is showing is in principle evolution through natural selection is impossible.

Though apes in general are linked closer to humans in the genetics which can also be the case with creation as we both are designed from the same blue print but with a variation in our genetics. The whole family tree going right back to the bacteria evolution say we evolved from is now on shaky ground. The evidence is pointing towards fish coming from fish and birds coming from bird or individual design rather than an evolutionary process."

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem is that gorillas which are suppose to be our 2nd closest ancestor or are not. The Macaque, Orangutan, Gibbon and Marmoset are closer to us than the gorilla. This puts a big dent in the family tree of man as the gorilla was seen as looking more like man and the others are less like man. It also shows how evolutionists get it wrong by trying to fit fossils into a hierarchy by claiming that the anatomy fits the picture. If they have got this wrong then how many others in the tree have they got wrong. In fact evidence is now coming out there are more violations to the human family tree. Nested hierarchy should show that our closest relatives are those which evolutionists have said in the taxonomic are linked by the fossils and anatomy they claim. They should also be closet to us in the genetics.

Now genetics are starting to pull that nested hierarchy apart and branches are falling off the tree they have made. Unexpected results are linking unusual species that they say should not go together. It is taking out important links they need to prove their theory and placing them in places they shouldn't be if the theory is true. But the most amazing find or should i say conclusion which the evidence is showing is in principle evolution through natural selection is impossible.

Though apes in general are linked closer to humans in the genetics which can also be the case with creation as we both are designed from the same blue print but with a variation in our genetics. The whole family tree going right back to the bacteria evolution say we evolved from is now on shaky ground. The evidence is pointing towards fish coming from fish and birds coming from bird or individual design rather than an evolutionary process.

No.

 

[stevevw]

No.

No then where is your evidence. You just say no and thats it, like your NO holds all the authority of all the scientists and experts. Like you know better, then you have to show some backup as no isn't good enough.

In the mean time i can support my opinions.

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/26/9929.full.pdf+html
"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson
Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks | Uncommon Descent

 

[[serious]]

No then where is your evidence. You just say no and thats it, like your NO holds all the authority of all the scientists and experts. Like you know better, then you have to show some backup as no isn't good enough.

In the mean time i can support my opinions.

Oh great! Letme guess, 3 actual journal articles that don't support your claim then a creationist source with zero peer review or impact factor?

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

Legitimate article, even kind of related as it does cooberate your unchallenged reference to gorillas being our second closest relation (well, to nitpick, second closest extant relative) but other than that it's just a discussion of the limits of resolution available via genetic analysis. It does present the possibility of more recent hybridization in some short stem lineages.

Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions

Argues for the addition of a clade in the early branching of mammals. Completely unrelated to any argument I've seen you make.

"Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor" by Marcus R. Ross and Paul A. Nelson

Oh! an unexpected early turn to zero impact stuff! At least it's well written nonsense. I don't know of any actual scientific attempt to describe an undiscovered LCA of all bilateral organisms. There are things we can rule out, such as where they live, but other than that, anything put forward would be nothing more than, "I don't know, could have looked like a simple round worm I suppose"

This one has the added benefit of having nothing to do with anything I've seen you claim.

Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks | Uncommon Descent

And there's the really silly one. "If the fish are always fish, then they will never be birds, reptiles, apes, or humans." Fish is not a taxanomic clade. Even an interested layman should know that.

 

[sfs]

Legitimate article, even kind of related as it does cooberate your unchallenged reference to gorillas being our second closest relation (well, to nitpick, second closest extant relative)

Third closest. Chimpanzees and bonobos are tied for first.